T Nation

Sarcoplasmic vs. Myofibrillar?

I know what people say is the difference between the two, but is it legit? Anyone?

[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
I know what people say is the difference between the two, but is it legit? Anyone?[/quote]

There’s a ton of things that are fun to muse over, but in my experience if you lift progressively heavy weights while eating a bunch of good food and getting enough rest you get bigger and stronger.

Thanks alot, that advice was worthless.

There was a good debate on this subject in this thread:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=910872

One of the points brought up was that a program should focus more on the specific training goals rather than worry about what exactly is going on inside the muscle.

Generally, the term “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” is attributed to a swelling in the energetical (non-contractile) elements of the muscle and thought to be attributed to training with higher reps, where more oxidation is occuring.

However, rather than worrying about whether their muscles are filling with sarcoplasm, an individual should just focus on strength-endurance (if that is their goal). Train for what you want to accomplish and your muscles and nervous system are going to align themselves in the most efficient manner to accomplish that task.

Remember, it’s not the size of your myofibril, it’s how you use it. I believe that’s a direct quote from Bruce Lee.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of the non-contractile muscle cell fluid, sarcoplasm. This fluid accounts for 25-30% of the muscle?s size. Although the cross sectional area of the muscle increases, the density of muscle fibers per unit area decreases, and there is no increase in muscular strength . This type of hypertrophy is mainly a result of high rep, ?bodybuilder-type? training

Myofibrillar hypertrophy, on the other hand, is an enlargement of the muscle fiber as it gains more myofibrils, which contract and generate tension in the muscle. With this type of hypertrophy, the area density of myofibrils increases and there is a significantly greater ability to exert muscular strength . This type of hypertrophy is best accomplished by training with heavy weights for low reps

Joe De Franco

LOL!, it wasn’t advice. It was a smart ass remark. I don’t know the answer and have a feeling that I wouldn’t be any bigger or stronger next year because I did.

Seriously though, all the scientific minutia fascinates me too, but in the end what difference does it make? Thousands and thousands of studies spanning decades all inching us closer to the divine secrets of hypertrophy and lipolysis and what does it all mean at this point? If you lift progressively heavier weights while eating a bunch of good and getting enough rest you’ll get bigger and stronger.

What does it mean? Utilise both training methodoligies to maximise growth…

[quote]stockzy wrote:
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of the non-contractile muscle cell fluid, sarcoplasm. This fluid accounts for 25-30% of the muscle?s size. Although the cross sectional area of the muscle increases, the density of muscle fibers per unit area decreases, and there is no increase in muscular strength . This type of hypertrophy is mainly a result of high rep, ?bodybuilder-type? training

Myofibrillar hypertrophy, on the other hand, is an enlargement of the muscle fiber as it gains more myofibrils, which contract and generate tension in the muscle. With this type of hypertrophy, the area density of myofibrils increases and there is a significantly greater ability to exert muscular strength . This type of hypertrophy is best accomplished by training with heavy weights for low reps

Joe De Franco[/quote]

It has not been proven that any type of training leads to one certain type of muscular growth in that way. We’ve discussed this. Much of what is being repeated in the training community about this is based on a rat study and a theory. It would be foolish to create any sort of training philosophy around it alone.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It has not been proven that any type of training leads to one certain type of muscular growth in that way. We’ve discussed this. Much of what is being repeated in the training community about this is based on a rat study and a theory. It would be foolish to create any sort of training philosophy around it alone.[/quote]

From the article

http://www.defrancostraining.com/articles/archive/articles_muscle-equal.htm

References

Poliquin, Charles. Modern Trends in Strength Training. Volume 1.
QFAC Bodybuilding, 2001.
Siff, Mel C. and Yuri V. Verkhoshansky. Supertraining. Colorado: Denver, 1999.
Tsatsouline, Pavel. Power to the People. Dragon Door Publications, Inc., 2000.

I’d probably be inclined to incorporate the philosophy…

[quote]stockzy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

It has not been proven that any type of training leads to one certain type of muscular growth in that way. We’ve discussed this. Much of what is being repeated in the training community about this is based on a rat study and a theory. It would be foolish to create any sort of training philosophy around it alone.

From the article

http://www.defrancostraining.com/articles/archive/articles_muscle-equal.htm

References

Poliquin, Charles. Modern Trends in Strength Training. Volume 1.
QFAC Bodybuilding, 2001.
Siff, Mel C. and Yuri V. Verkhoshansky. Supertraining. Colorado: Denver, 1999.
Tsatsouline, Pavel. Power to the People. Dragon Door Publications, Inc., 2000.

I’d probably be inclined to incorporate the philosophy…[/quote]

Read the thread I posted, the “rat study” which X refers to is one of the primary references on this topic in Supertraining and is frequently referenced in other articles/books as “proof” of the energetics theory. If you read it, it’s not nearly as strong as it is often made out to be. Personally, I’m inclined to think the energetics theory is a good explanation, but then again, I don’t really know shit so my opinion doesn’t matter a whole lot.

I also think that the stereotypical (please note the quotes, do not flame) “weak bodybuilder” syndrome is probably more a result of fiber characteristics and a lack of training in lower rep or time ranges.

[quote]stockzy wrote:
Professor X wrote:

It has not been proven that any type of training leads to one certain type of muscular growth in that way. We’ve discussed this. Much of what is being repeated in the training community about this is based on a rat study and a theory. It would be foolish to create any sort of training philosophy around it alone.

From the article

http://www.defrancostraining.com/articles/archive/articles_muscle-equal.htm

References

Poliquin, Charles. Modern Trends in Strength Training. Volume 1.
QFAC Bodybuilding, 2001.
Siff, Mel C. and Yuri V. Verkhoshansky. Supertraining. Colorado: Denver, 1999.
Tsatsouline, Pavel. Power to the People. Dragon Door Publications, Inc., 2000.

I’d probably be inclined to incorporate the philosophy…

[/quote]

Did you read the thread that was linked in this one? I’m not trying to insult you, but we’ve been through this and you aren’t posting any new material on the issue. It helps sell books…as long as no one looks deeper.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Did you read the thread that was linked in this one? I’m not trying to insult you, but we’ve been through this and you aren’t posting any new material on the issue. It helps sell books…as long as no one looks deeper.[/quote]

Yeah, sorry. Actually have to do a bit of work between reading T-Nation! haha.
Sorry i missed that thread. I can’t add any new material after reading that unfortunately…But for what it’s worth:

Until more people start volunteering to have muscle biopsy’s done on the matter, we’ll have to view the studies on rats skeptically. But the theory is there and there will be some spillover to humans. Combine that with real world experience of my own and from poeple like CT who advocate 1 strength block for every 2 hypertrophy blocks (no reference to myofribillar hypertrophy mind you)for a bodybuilding focus and i gotta go with the expert advice…It has worked with me and numerous paying clients.

Alot of training theories are based on ‘in the trenches’ type research and i also find this to be the best, but science to back you up is re assuring. I, like alot of strength coaches are obsessed with the 'why’so you gotta do alot of reading and scrutinizing, if I have to listen to anyone in the strength and conditioning community i’ll go with the well respected like Siff, Poliquin, King, Staley, CT and DeFranco…They’ve put the years in and get the results.
Hence my inclination to include both types of training…

Until the why has any significant impact on the how it will remain very interesting theoretical brain candy at best. I love reading the why as much as anybody, but I’ve yet to see anything that had me going “HO-LEE SHIT, have we ever been doing this wrong.”

[quote]stockzy wrote:

Hence my inclination to include both types of training…[/quote]

The point is that you can’t “isolate your myofibrils” or your sarcoplasm.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

The point is that you can’t “isolate your myofibrils” or your sarcoplasm.

[/quote]

Totally agreed. Just like technically you can’t isolate a bicep. But you’d have to agree that myofibrils or sarcoplasm will be ‘emphasised’ depending on the sets/reps and load…

[quote]stockzy wrote:
But you’d have to agree that myofibrils or sarcoplasm will be ‘emphasised’ depending on the sets/reps and load…[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. It also could have to do with fiber conversion or perhaps nervous system factors.

This doesnt make any sense. Tons of people have gotten stronger from doing 8 and higher repititions on exercises

[quote]Kozz wrote:
This doesnt make any sense. Tons of people have gotten stronger from doing 8 and higher repititions on exercises[/quote]

To a point… at which time they would probably get stronger still on a staple diet of lower rep training… during which some version of periodization using higher rep days or sets would also probably still beneficial. This sounds hauntingly similar to what’s generally been done for a few decades now.

Don’t get me wrong folks, but I spent hundreds of hours stuffing my head with every possible shred of information I could get my hands on and then very foolishly allowed life to get the best of me and left the game for 13 years.

Imagine my amused surprise when upon returning and scouring the now available internet I find that the major changes have been that creatine has been shown to be efficacious afterall, soy protein hasn’t and Dan Duchaine is dead. Actually probably the greatest advancement has been that carbs have lost their sainthood and fat has been decriminalized.

Beyond a nominally better understanding of why a few things happen it’s pretty much how it’s always been.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Beyond a nominally better understanding of why a few things happen it’s pretty much how it’s always been.
[/quote]

Yeah but some of us are college student with nothing better to do all day.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Beyond a nominally better understanding of why a few things happen it’s pretty much how it’s always been.

Yeah but some of us are college student with nothing better to do all day.
[/quote]

I am in no way looking askance at those who spend even large amounts of time studying these things. I hope I’m not being taken that way. I do However believe that most beginner to intermediate types, in which group I include myself by the way, are not well served by trying to fine tune their training according to the latest cutting edge cellular level science which has still told us next to nothing conclusive about HOW to train.

I’m betting probably 90% or better of the current population of the weight training world fall into this category.